Vint Cerf wrote an article for the NY Times with the title “Internet Access Is Not a Human Right.” wherein he suggests that Internet access and the technology that provides it is “…an enabler of rights, not a right itself” and “…it is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category [human right,] since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things.”

This article is so rich in very interesting points that I could spend hours both highlighting points to both agree with as well as squint sternly at many of them.

It made me think and in conclusion, I find myself in overall agreement. This topic inflames passionate debate — some really interesting debate — such as that from Rob Graham (@erratarob) here [although I’m not sure how a discussion on Human rights became anchored on U.S. centric constitutional elements which don’t, by definition, apply to all humans…only Americans…]

This ends up being much more of a complex moral issue than I expected in reviewing others’ arguments.

I’ve positioned this point for discussion in many forums without stating my position and have generally become fascinated by the results.

What do you think — is Internet access (not the Internet itself) a basic human right?

Hoff, you know that I spent a major portion of my life defending rights. I do however, agree with Cerf. There is a right to speak against oppression and in political discourse. The forum however is not guranteed. With the Internet, as with much of the technology developed to exploit it, has progressed much faster than the policy, law, and doctrine on it use.

If you sincerely believe the Internet can be taken away, maybe I should take away the food on your table, the clothes you wear, the very air you breathe. All of those are enablers of your ability to live. I am not suggesting that the Internet would determine your ability to live or die but it provides a medium or platform for communication, expression, etc. That right of communicating, expressing, etc is being infringed. Again WHY is the government allowing corporations (and the people behind them) to get away with murder. I agree that we are becoming dependent on technology but by no means does this mean that the government, corporations, etc should decide whether I, you, everyone have the inability to express what we think, what we say, what we do.

Okay unless I am missing the entire point, can someone explain or elaborate “…an enabler of rights, not a right itself”. If the Internet is the enabler of rights, why is there a discussion to restrict that very right? Think the subject is being sidetracked to whether it a right or not. The discussion should be WHY is the government bowing to the demands of corporations and not taking account the very human rights they are infringing on i.e. playing the parent who attempts to control what their child does or not and frankly I doubt any of us would attest us being children.